The Persistence Of Memory

Old Europe

War, armistice and the fall of the Berlin Wall mark Europe (2012)

Last week saw the anniversary of two events that shaped Europe; Armistice Day and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although separated by many decades it is the act of remembrance that unifies them. For the last couple of weeks Brits in Brussels have been wearing a small poppy in their lapels, prompting colleagues and strangers come up to them and ask "What's that for?"

The use of the poppy is a sign of remembrance that comes from John McCrae, the Canadian soldier who wrote a poem in 1915 that began with, "In Flanders fields, the poppies blow, Between the crosses, row on row". Armistice Day services are without pomp or ceremony. Just a few words and two minutes of silence and the sound of the Last Post from a solitary bugle.

This year, Armistice Day was made more poignant as the last veteran, Harry Patch died in July, meaning that this is the first anniversary with no living witnesses. The twenty years since the collapse of communism means that many under 30 will have little memory or appreciation of how the world was shaped by the Cold War, the possibility of a nuclear conflict or the nature of a totalitarian regime.

History is written by the victors, it is said, but this is harder to achieve now, with increased education, access to information and the decline of dictatorships. In his novel, 1984, George Orwell's central character, Winston Smith, is an official falsifier of history, erasing references, altering photographs and inventing the past according to Party dictates. This is a more chilling aspect than the surveillance society he imagines.

Today, although all nations like to romanticise their past, it is only in closed societies that a complete rewriting of history can take place, such as in North Korea. However, there are those who are falsifying history for their own ends.

An example is those who deny the Holocaust. It is no coincidence that, as witnesses pass away, the revisionists gain pace. today, there are several MEPs who deny this great crime, the moral low point of the modern world. When we look at them, it is clear that they are also the ones who would remove fascism from the dustbin of history, who would like to see it emerge again.

If they can't be honest about the past, how can they be trusted with our futures?

Europe's history is soaked in blood. By remembering the victims of war and the sacrifices of those that fought. By remembering the brutal nature of war and the suffering it causes, we can also remember what where we came from and this will help us to continue to build a peaceful and fair society.

Whatever the failings of the European Union, it was the greatest instrument to building peace in a shattered continent and remains our best bet to achieve these goals. What we need to do now, is to improve the Union and fight against those who lie about history, who wish to see its darkest days return.

War 2.0 and How To End It

South Ossetia, one of many little known conflicts

A look at the new ways of resolving conflict and Europe's role in 2012

The European Union was founded after the Second World War, where large armed forces fought each other and devastated a continent. Such wars are becoming a thing of the past and most current and future conflicts are very different. Today, most conflicts are within societies and not between states, argues Jochen Hippler from the Institute for Development and Peace in ISIS Europe's 2009 Peace Report. Politically speaking, there are two important and frequent types of conflict, sometimes combined:

1. Insurgencies involving struggles for power within a state, often involving competing insurgency groups against a government, often with the involvement of outside states conducting 'war by proxy'.

2. Conflicts in the context of failed states, where the state has stopped functioning and insurgents or warlords fight over power and natural resources.

In both cases a military victory is almost impossible to achieve and conflict grinds on, often over decades. In all cases, although winners are hard to see, it is the poor, the dispossessed who are always the losers. The battlegrounds in these cases are often not territory but the hearts and minds of the populations in order to achieve political power in a society rather than the acquisition of territory. Insurgent campaigns are also difficult to fight by military means as it is hard to discern the difference between combatants and civilians. All too often this leads to ethnic cleansing and similar atrocities by organised forces as there is no identifiable enemy or battleground. The old cry from the Crusades of "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise his own" is often a policy objective.

How to end these wars? This is the question being considered by the EU and NATO. It has always been easier to start a war than end it, and in a globalised world the many longstanding conflicts affect us all, from the Israel/Palestine situation, African conflicts, especially in the Congo and Sudan to Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most analysts agree that the Iraq war was a grievous strategic error and the poor preparation, combined with hasty decisions, like disbanding the Iraqi army, has proven the old maxim that conflict begets conflict.

Retired British General Rupert Smith wrote in 'The Utility of Force' that "Capturing the will of the people is a very clear and basic concept, yet one that is either misunderstood or ignored by political and military establishments around the world. The politician keeps applying force to attain a condition, assuming the military will both create and maintain it. and whilst for many years the military has understood the need to win hearts and minds of the local population, this is still seen as a supporting activity to the defeat of the insurgents rather than the overall objective."

The US military has learned some hard lessons in Iraq and the arrival of General Petraeus led to a new strategy, elucidated in their counterinsurgency manual, "Counter insurgents achieve the most meaningful success by gaining popular support and legitimacy for the host government, not by killing insurgents. Security plays an important role in setting the stage for other progress, but lasting victory comes from a vibrant economy, political participation, and restored hope."

Hippler agrees with this strategy saying insurgencies seldom succeed against a functioning state and their aims are to weaken a state and provide a 'virtual' state in its place. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have been very active in setting up such institutions, providing education, health and other social services where the nominal state cannot provide them. This has given them public support which enhances their capabilities and supports their goals. There is an anecdote set in Afghanistan that illustrates the point. A widow had ten acres of her land taken off her by her husband's brother. She tried for a decade to get restitution in the Afghan courts without success, but when the Taliban gained control of her village she went to their sharia courts. Two days later they had ruled that she must be given her land back and the offender had also to give her an additional ten acres for ten years to compensate her for the loss of crops. This was seen as fair and efficient, so who are the villagers going to turn to in case of difficulties but the Taliban?

The EU is well placed to assist in capacity building. For example European money has kept the Palestinian Authority functioning and has fed the 90% of Palestinians dependant on food aid. The use of soft power is where the EU can try to influence. One council official said that "If there were ten commandments for the EU, the first one would be 'Thou shalt negotiate", echoing Winston Churchill's remark that "Jaw-jaw is better than war, war". However, the parties in conflict do need to have the desire to talk or, as in the case of Israel and Palestine, they will condemn their peoples to seemingly endless violence.

The problem for Europe is that the EU is seen as an economic actor and for all its diplomacy, the monies spent don't always translate into political influence. This often leaves EU policy trailing behind the US State Department and the vagaries of the occupant of the White House. Will Lisbon improve this? Many expect it will, but the vagueness in the treaty mean that there will be turf wars between the institutions and Henry Kissinger's famed request for "what number do I call for Europe?" is still unanswered.

Despite this the EU has built up significant experience in peace building and is a major player. The Obama administration is seen as being much closer to EU ideals and the American President has shown a keen interest in conflict resolution, despite a domestic agenda of almost overwhelming problems, but the EU does need to get its act together and find mechanisms to expedite their contributions towards conflict resolution or they will continue to trail behind Uncle Sam, losing prestige and more importantly, influence.